Talk:University of Law/Archive 1

Assessment

I have assessed this article for the Wiki Schools Project to help in future improvement. What is needed to improve is as follows: This articles needs to be expanded so it is fully referenced and covers more topics such as the layout of the campuses, history, and what the college has to offer in terms of courses. The picture should also be integrated into an infobox. Camaron1 | Chris 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am re-assessing this article as C-class and placing it under WikiProject Universities as it is at university/college level rather than schooling. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:College of Law Logo.gif

Image:College of Law Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First private degree-awarding institution?

While the College claims to have become the first private institution in the UK to be awarded degree-conferring powers, I was under the strong impression that the University of Buckingham got there first - by some thirty years.

Unfortunately Wiki's own page on Buckingham doesn't go into much detail about their corporate status or financial means, so the College's claim could be correct.

In the meantime I suggest that instead of asserting this claim as fact, the entry should just read that the College claims they are the first, as they do.

Re-assessment

I am assessing this article for WikiProject Universities, following a suggestion being left on my talk page. I have decided to leave this article at C-class for now, though it could be B-class with a lot of further work. This article clearly needs expansion, and for ideas on content I would recommend reviewing WP:UNI/AG. Many more references are needed and many of the existing ones are dead, which need replacing - see WP:V and WP:CITE for more information. If possible citation templates, such as {{Cite web}}, should be used, see WP:CITET. When adding content to the article, ensure it follows core policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If an editor is closely connected with the institution, they are allowed to contribute to the article, but should review WP:COI first. I think that will do for now. If further feedback is wanted from me, feel free to drop me a note. CT Cooper · talk 16:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Crest v Corporate Logo

I have put the crest back onto the page at the top and the corporate logo at the bottom as is is the format followed on other university pages.

It is also what is set out in the info box used (Template:Infobox university).

The guidance in the infobox states:

image_name [top image] - "...preferably the university's official seal or logo" ... logo [bottom image] - "Use for an athletics logo, corporate emblem, or similar graphic"

It appears that a distinction is drawn between a 'corporate emblem or similar graphic' and an 'official seal or logo'.

For examples of this usage see the pages of Lancaster University, University of Bristol and University of Liverpool.

Jonny1047 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jonny1047!

I'm a representative of The University of Law, and have been working with an editor of the Wikipedia page to update the branding that is currently showing. The new University logo has kindly been updated, however we understand that you have queried removing the old crest image. I can confirm that this crest relates to the charitable activities of The College of Law and its royal charter, which The University of Law is no longer associated with. As such, the crest is no longer featured on The University of Law's website or any materials. Please see the Legal Services Institute website, which clearly shows their association with the crest - and the University's website which only features the new branding.

Could you please confirm that you are in agreement for us to proceed with updating the University of Law Wikipedia page to remove the old crest image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryonybennett (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that the fact that the College changed its name to University meant that the entity was still the same. If this is not the case and the University is not the same body established by the Royal Charter and granted the arms then they should be removed or moved to alongside the history section. However, I would say that if the College simply changed its name to University and the University is still the same body to which the arms were granted then they should remain, in accordance with the guidance published on Wikipedia and in line with the pages of other universities.

Could you confirm which of the above is the case? Jonny1047 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

Thanks for getting back to me. When The College of Law was bought by a private equity company, the charitable activities of the College were separated from the business activities, and were used to set up the Legal Education Foundation. At this point, The College of Law became The College of Law Limited, and no longer had an association with the crest emblem. The College was then granted full University title in November 2012, and was re-branded as The University of Law in March 2013.

I can therefore confirm that the University is no longer connected to the Royal Charter or the previous charitable activities of The College of Law. We will go ahead and remove the crest from the Wikipedia page, and move the only brand mark to the top of the section.

I hope this clears things up. Thanks 195.12.230.131 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As you can confirm that the University of Law is not the body granted or entitled to the arms I would agree that they should, indeed, be removed from the infobox. Though possibly they could be put with the history section for posterity? Jonny1047 (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks, we'll go ahead and get this changed. We'll speak with the editor we have been working with and see what we can do to move the crest. Thanks Bryony 195.12.230.131 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The logo is uploaded as non-free content and therefore its use has to follow the non-free content criteria. While it passed this criteria fine as the official crest of the college in the infobox, having it in the history section is a little more dodgy, but I will leave it for now. CT Cooper · talk 15:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article only. Discussion over dictionary definitions is for Wiktionary, not here. This thread is clearly only going downhill. CT Cooper · talk 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Pedantic note: It's not a crest, it's a coat of arms. I'm surprised that nobody seems to know the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.197.139.41 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC) The word crest has multiple meanings, with one definition being simply "a design or logo", although referring to it as a coat of arms is more specific with less potential for confusion. CT Cooper · talk 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately for the previous contributor, the wiktionary citation he gives (he likes definition 10, I assume, because it justifies ignorant abuse of definition 3) links to one quotation from Winston Churchill which has been totally misunderstood by its Wiktionary contributor (notepaper of the English nobility in the 19th century usually bearing quite literally the heraldic crest referred to at definition (3) rather than the full escutcheon or coat of arms), and a second from an on-line film review of no linguistic standing or notoriety at all. Just by a small number of people using a word incorrectly its meaning does not change - the generality of the users of the language need to use the word in its changed sense over a considerable period of time for that to happen. Now to work out how to become a constructive wiktionary editor and get definition 10 of Crest deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I personally don't care and I don't consider arguing over such things to be a good use of time, though those who do care are welcome to go over to Wiktionary and argue it out. This is not the place for it – the purpose of this discussion was to establish the current use of the crest/coat of arms, and it succeeded in that aim. Extended commentary on the choice of words of various editors is off-topic. CT Cooper · talk 21:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Interesting that a thread you began is off-topic the moment it isn't summed up by your clever last word... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing and NPOV problems

I'm responding to a question of WP:AN, but in my capacity as an editor:

1.Ref 21, though it is not visible to me in full, is a link not to the Telegraph, but to the Telegraph/sponsored pages. It is therefore a paid advertisement and cannot be used to support a claim of excellence. I've removed both it and the promotional claim to excellence that it supports.

2. The remaining sentence under "academic profile" is an unsourced speculative original research about a claim to excellence. It has been removed, for all of theee reasons, any one of which would justify removal

3. In the section on course some material is listed twice. I've removed the duplicates.

4. References 15 is a company press release . it cannot be used to support a claim of "first" I've removed that claim

5. The disputed statement of being the first private university etc. is also sourced to a press release. ItThis cannot be used for such a claim, and I've removed it. Please dod not add it back without a 3rd party reliable source,

6. I have also removed a few other claims of first or major that are completely unsupported by sources.

7. The statement of 153 member of parliament cannot stand without a source. Contrary to what is stated asa note in the text, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants it included to find a reliable source. It cannot be indirectly sourced by searching through the articles for the people in the List of Members of Parliament, since that list is stated to be incomplete. (In a positive direction, it would be quite appropriate to include all of its graduates who are MPs or high court judges in the list of notable graduates, making a WP article for each if we do not already have one, if there is a specific source for each of them being educated there. As is the normal practice for universities, that list could also be moved to a separate article.

8. I have not dealt with the disputed claims in the first paragraph. I'll try to get back to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

DGG, I completely agree with your removal of the so-called "Academic profile" section. It was originally added just at the time that the college had gone commercial and was pushing for university status [1]. I detect the heavy hand of a PR department. As to the rest of the article, I've re-written and re-referenced the lede. I think it's now reasonably neutral (and much more truthful than it was before), but please tweak where necessary. I've also removed random PR announcements from the "History" section [2]. Apart from one of them being unreferenced and the other referenced to a press release, they were of a triviality that is entirely inappropriate. Compare to the history section of Harvard Law School. I've also made clear in that section that the claim of the Moorgate centre being "the UK's largest corporate-specific law school" is made by the university itself and added a couple of reliable sources in other places. However, the "History" section still needs work and more references. I've specifically tagged two claims with ... (1) that its 1975 proposals "changed the face of legal education" (2) that it "pioneered the establishment of pro bono clinics". Voceditenore (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

PS Here's the archived version of the now-unavailable Telegraph advertorial that was formerly Reference 21. It was indeed written by the school. Not only that, the alleged quote from it stating that the university is "the country's best law school" appears nowhere in that "article", as flaming as it was in other respects. Voceditenore (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Once I started re-working the "History" section, it soon became apparent where the "changed the face of legal education" and "pioneered the establishment of pro bono clinics" came from. Virtually the entire section (apart from the 2012 sell-off to Montague Private Equity) had been copypasted from UoL's website and promotional brochures. That version is now consigned to the dust heap. Voceditenore (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Notable alumni?

I have looked at the Wikipedia pages for the first five entries on the list of 'Notable alumni' (Cherie Blair; John Widgery, Baron Widgery; Charles Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton; Sadiq Khan; and Androulla Vassiliou, and none of them mentions the University of Law (except for Cherie Blair, where the source is a press release from the institution itself - her own website makes no mention of any such studies). JezGrove (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added the following reference which states that Cherie Blair, Francis Maude and Jonny Searle are alumni:

• West, Karl (26 February 2012). "Law school's £200m sale". Sunday Times. Retrieved 2 June 2016 .

Subscription is needed for full access, but the part available to non-subscribers lists those names. Of course the reporter may have got this information from Wikipedia. It would certainly not be the first time. Voceditenore (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

JezGrove, I've added references for Baron Widgery, Lord Falconer, and Sadiq Khan. I've removed Androulla Vassiliou. She may well have studied there, but I can't find a reference at all for it. She studied law in London in the very early 1960s. Many prominent lawyers, politicians often leave such things out of their official bios and only list where they principally studied—in her case, the Middle Temple. Listing the College of Law in your official UK/EU biography is somewhat equivalent to prominent US lawyers graduating from Harvard Law School and also listing the place where they studied for their bar exam. Voceditenore (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll later make a gallery, nonetheless many of them do not possess any image at all.--Legrepunalycou (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

No, Legrepunalycou, please do not make a gallery of alumni. It is entirely unnecessary for an article about the school to have a gallery of its alumni, or a gallery of anything. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Image use policy. This is an encyclopedia article, not an alternative web site for the university and should not be treated as one. That includes repeatedly attempting to re-add this sort of blatant puffery. Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Have a look at the UCL one.--Legrepunalycou (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have. It is also inappropriate. Voceditenore (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.charitiesdirect.com/charities/top500rank.php?Start=50&Sort=I&Order=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Voceditenore (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Update and removal of Advert tag

I've re-written and expanded this article, pretty much from top to bottom, and replaced all of the original copypaste from the UoL's website in the "History" section. Apart from the promotional nature, it omitted rather important, but perhaps less flattering aspects of the institution's history. In the process I have removed all references consisting of links to their website, apart from one which simply references the partial list of courses. See also my previous updates in Sourcing and NPOV problems above. I've now removed the advert tag, as in my view it no longer applies. User:Reaganomics88, User:Nihonjoe, User:DGG, hopefully you're in agreement with this. If not, there's always the "undo" button. Voceditenore (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it looks far, far better than it used to look. Thank you for your work. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore, you did some really excellent work rescuing this. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your work. Reaganomics88 (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I was concerned on the direction this article was heading in. Thank you for stepping-in and giving it a much needed revamp. CT Cooper · talk 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Discuss here please

So what's wrong with those phrases? Those aren't promotional at all.--Legrepunalycou (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

See above, the previous version was written with extensive WP:PEACOCK language. Also, as Voceditenore says, if you have a connection to the university you should declare it. Reaganomics88 (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Legrepunalycou, they are promotional because they are what the university says about itself in its own marketing material, not what any independent reliable source has ever said. We are an encyclopedia summarizing what independent reliable sources have written. We do not reprint the subject's publicity blurbs. I'm going to spell it out for you because you persistently refuse to get the point or understand the basic standards required of editors here. You have repeatedly re-added:

It has frequently been recognised as "the world's leading professional law school" by several magazines and annual publications of university rankings, including the Times Higher Education and QS World University Rankings.

You then referenced it to

• "University of Law announces new Leeds City centre location". The Guardian. This is the university's own press release published in the "Partner Zone" of the Guardian, where they publish advertorials for a fee. It is not an article from the newspaper.
• "History of the University of Law". The Complete University Guide. This is the university's own blurb, written by their marketing department. This website (thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk) has its own proprietary rankings for UK universities and the University of Law does not even appear in the top 100 for Law [3].
• "The University of Law". Top Universtities. This is the university's own blurb, written by their marketing department. This website (topuniversities.com) has its own proprietary rankings for universities worldwide, i.e. QS World University Rankings, and the University of Law does not even appear in the top 200 for Law [4].

You also claim in that sentence that the Times Higher Ed was one of the publications that recognised it as "the world's leading professional law school" . It has not said anything of the kind. You cannot find a single independent source for that made-up quote, let alone the Times Higher Ed.

Every single edit you have made to Wikipedia both under this account [5] and under the IP 90.218.243.199 [6] has been to add promotional or inappropriate material to this article, add links to its rebranded name in many other articles, add false and promotional content to articles like List of UK universities by date of foundation [7], add to many biographies that the person was an alumni of the "University of Law" with zero supporting evidence and consistently stating that they attended the "University of Law" (a for-profit business), when they actually attended its previous incarnation, the College of Law, a charity with a Royal Charter. This latter behaviour strongly suggests attempts at search engine optimization, in addition to pure marketing. I am now going through every single article you and the IP have edited to check for inaccuracies and repair them. Voceditenore (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Voceditenore don't say nonsense. ULaw is a private university, therefore how can it be ranked? Times Higher Ed stated that the University consider itself to be the world's professional law school. We could add it.--Legrepunalycou (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The University of Buckingham is a private university and it is ranked number 52 in the UK for law according to the The Complete University Guide rankings . And no, we are not going to reprint the university's marketing claims as a quote from its former CEO, let alone in the lead. Have you learned nothing from your block? I also changed the edit you just made here which attempted to use a 2006 source to support a claim about 2016. That is completely unacceptable. Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Update to the above: See Rose, Neil (16 November 2016). "ULaw forced to stop calling itself “UK's leading law school”". Legal Futures

"The University of Law (ULaw) is to stop claiming that it is the “leading” law school in the UK in the wake of a ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA upheld a complaint about an advert published by ULaw after finding the evidence supplied by the university incompatible with such a claim.[...]

Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hype removed

User:Legrepunalycou, you removed this from the lead (and its supporting reference):

"The university has eight branches in England, two of them in London. It was founded in 1962 as the College of Law and was granted degree-awarding powers in 2006 by which time it had become Europe's largest provider of vocational legal education and training."

You replaced it with:

"The university is Europe's largest law school and the longest-established specialist provider of legal education. It has eight branches in England, two of them in London. It was founded in 1962 as the College of Law."

I have reverted this because the original was more accurate, better referenced, more informative, and better written. Apart from the unnecessary hype, the second reference you added was sponsored content, i.e. advertorial and the first reference you added only supports that it is the UK's largest law school. Why are you so determined to add hype like "longest", "biggest", "oldest", "leading" etc. to the lead, and as high as possible in the lead? Why are you determined to make this encyclopedia article read like a recruitment brochure? I am going to ask you one more time. Do have any affiliation with the University of Law? Are you being paid to make these kinds of edits to the article? Can you please explain why in this exchange on Commons concerning an image of one of the university's buildings you said "This image belongs to us and it has been labelled on many websites and forums"? Voceditenore (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Obvoiusly I have affiliations with this institution. The sources are reliable and the article should contain its influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legrepunalycou (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What are your "affiliations"? Are you in any way employed by the University? If the answer is yes, you should not be directly editing this article at all. You are also in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use if you do not explicitly declare this employment, name the employer, and name the articles you are being paid to edit. Employment includes being an employee of the university itself, a freelance employee working on behalf of the university, or working for a PR or digital marketing company of which the university is a client.

I have again removed the "reference" [8] which is an advertorial ("sponsored content") and not a news article, and the claim which it allegedly supported: "over time it had became the longest provider of legal education". Apart from being ungrammatical English, it is patently untrue. It is not the longest, i.e. oldest, provider of legal education at all, even in the UK. It was founded in 1962 from the merger of two institutions, the oldest of which was founded in 1876, and not even awarded degree powers until 2006. Please read City Law School (founded in 1852), UCL Faculty of Laws (founded in 1826) and multiple others. Even if it were true, whether or not an institution is the "oldest" is utterly immaterial to how "influential" or "good" it is. Frankly, the claim that it is the "largest" law school in the UK is also utterly immaterial to its prestige or influence. ULaw has 16,000 students. Harvard Law School has under 2000. Prestige and influence do not rest with size. Nevertheless, I left in your pointless claim about ULaw being the "largest" law school in the UK. I also suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and stop using meaningless time constructs like "currently". Voceditenore (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not pointless at all. You are talking as you are the founder of Wikipedia. And then I've used currently" to demonstrate that I am not using attractive words. With regard to the other sentence, there are amply of sources that mention that. Probably its meaning is not same as you understood. Nonetheless ULaw is the finest t Law school in the entire Europe. Almost everything is being thought there. Would you like to be enrolled there? Are you interested to pursue any law related degree? How old are you? Legrepunalycou (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University of Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717134530/http://ials.sas.ac.uk/library/archives/cle.htm to http://ials.sas.ac.uk/library/archives/cle.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)